Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we had the stand your ground laws and everything else was the same it would have turned out the same more then likely.
Obviously if everything was the same the same result would occur, but its not the same, for example it would have been illegal for Zimmerman to carry a personal fire arm.what would Canadas laws be about using deadly force to protect yourself in a fight.?
Obviously if everything was the same the same result would occur, but its not the same, for example it would have been illegal for Zimmerman to carry a personal fire arm.what would Canadas laws be about using deadly force to protect yourself in a fight.?
You would be guilty but the kicker is how much jail time my guess is you would get a few years.
Obviously if everything was the same the same result would occur, but its not the same, for example it would have been illegal for Zimmerman to carry a personal fire arm.what would Canadas laws be about using deadly force to protect yourself in a fight.?
You are right that the same thing would not have occurred in Canada.
Canadians have always had more rights to protect themselves in self defense and defense of property than most realize. Now there is more.
This legislation was newly introduced this year - Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, S.C. 2012 c. 9, came into force on March 11, 2013. The legislation replaces the old Criminal Code provisions on self-defence and defence of property with new and reformed defences.
Here is just a snip from it but there is more, (there's a few pages) so click on the link above to read all the rest:
Quote:
SELF-DEFENCE
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances
34 (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
34 (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
In Canada, no one is legally allowed to be armed in public, except Police and members of the Canadian Forces, who must be "on duty ". The usual exceptions for hunting are made in law.
The use of physical force, to defend against a attack by another person, is allowed in Canada, BUT the force used in that defence must be no more than what the original attacker used. Example, if someone kicks you in the leg, you can't then use that excuse to kill them. If some one has a weapon of some sort, you may legally use force to defend yourself, but not to the point where the other person is killed. That would be prosecuted.
Reading the new changes to the Criminal Code of Canada, that were put up here, it seems to me that the intent was to loosen the guidelines, somewhat, and to make it easier for the individual to act, without being prosecuted.
I don't think that any kind of useful comparison can be made, between the law in Canada, re self defence, and that which is allowed in Florida. Hand gun ownership in Florida is huge, and so are their crime problems. Two completely opposite legal environments, and very different social situations, as well.
The use of physical force, to defend against a attack by another person, is allowed in Canada, BUT the force used in that defence must be no more than what the original attacker used. Example, if someone kicks you in the leg, you can't then use that excuse to kill them. If some one has a weapon of some sort, you may legally use force to defend yourself, but not to the point where the other person is killed. That would be prosecuted.
You're a bit off. The force you are allowed to return is not "eye for an eye" or equivalent, but whatever force is reasonably required to allow you to remove yourself from harm. If you require more force than was applied to you to ensure your safety, that's permitted, but don't kid yourself. The odds of prosecution for excessive force are extremely high.
It goes back to the old American saying, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
. Hand gun ownership in Florida is huge, and so are their crime problems. Two completely opposite legal environments, and very different social situations, as well.
Jim b
Toronto.
Reminds me of my rightwing nut job brother who lives in Florida and carries 2 concealed hand guns thinking if one breaks you still have another also its quicker to pull out another gun than reload the first one,When i ask him for his rationale his usual pat response is better to have em and not need em than to need em and not have em. i have no answer to his logic..
Reminds me of my rightwing nut job brother who lives in Florida and carries 2 concealed hand guns thinking if one breaks you still have another also its quicker to pull out another gun than reload the first one,When i ask him for his rationale his usual pat response is better to have em and not need em than to need em and not have em. i have no answer to his logic..
In Canada i can understand hunters getting worried when people talk about changing rights etc but when people start saying we should have the right to carry you ask them why most will say so i can protect my home etc that is a issue.
In Canada, we don't even allow "off duty cops " to be armed, so why would we allow anybody else to do that ? At the end of their shift, they lock their issue firearm in a individual gun locker, at the station, and go home. That's the law here in Canada.
Only in VERY special situations are Canadian Police allowed to be armed, when off duty, and that requires a specific "Chief's letter of approval " that is for a set period of time, and usually related to a specific credible threat to THAT officer, or his family .
Contrast that to many US jurisdictions, where Police are required to be armed 24/7, by their own department's regulations. NYPD is just one of hundreds that have that rule.
In Canada, if you apply for a firearms permit, for a rifle or shotgun, and use the term " for my protection " on the application, you will be denied, right away, as the rules here do not allow the use of any firearm for "personal protection " . Same thing applies to property protection , except for licensed armoured car guards, while on duty and guarding large amounts of cash or gold.
One exception would be those who are working or travelling in VERY isolated parts of northern Canada, where there are large and dangerous animals. In many cases, hiring a local Aboriginal who is armed, and experienced with wild life in that region, would be a good idea.
Why do you Canadians pay so much attention to us Americans, I thought one poster said Canadians could care less about us?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
